elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

Hi all,

can you please help?

Want to buy an all-rounder for my FX camera. My choice is between these two and the price difference is important for me but if the Nikon is SO much better then I can try to stir it up.

Has anyone used both and give me advice on IQ, sharpness etc.
Remember it will be my walkaround lens and for better IQ I have primes.

Thanks

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Based upon Ken Rockwell's review of the Tamron I wouldn't even look at it. He speaks higly of the Nikon. I have the Nikon on my D800 and it gives sharp photos.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/28-300mm-NEW.htm

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

I think that Ken is a bit biased at timea, so what he says, for me, is to take with a grain of salt. Depending on what he says we should all be shooting wiyh a D40...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Well, at least read his review. I don't think that this is a case of bias. A lot of people think otherwise of Rockwell. Read this review and then read the Nikon 28-300 review.

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

I have read both and I'm sure that the Nikon is better but my questione is : is it 400 euro better? I mean is it totally crap? Or is the IQ acceptable?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Once you have laid hands on both you will disregard the Tamron VERY quickly. The difference in build quality is phenomenal. The Nikon is a MUCH sharper lens optically and the Nikon VR II stabilization is second to none. Its my walk around lens and is never off one of my D800's unless I am putting it on the other one.

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

I know you use it and are enthusiastic about it and I believe you.
What confuses me is that I have read some contrasty opinions about it. Some people say that it's not sharp etc.
I would put it on a D700.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

For sharper, go with the 70-200 f2.8

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

Don't have the budget for it.

profpb Loc: Venice, Florida

I learned by experience. I am motivated by sharp images.

Results: I live with only seven lenses--all Nikon.

I use the 28-300mm on both my D800e and my D7000.

It is full-frame and 450mm on my D7000 where I store it for walk-around and quick wildlife shots.

Only the 70-200mm compares but is in another price range.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Ditto!

Grant Good Loc: Gold Coast AUSTRALIA

Elandel, I've not read any of Ken Rockwells reviews, don't know who he is, however, I'd rather have a 70-200mm 2.8 VR lens mounted on a D40 than a Tamron 28-300 or the Nikon 28-300 mounted on a D800.. In other words spend your money on the best lenses, it's the quality lens which makes the difference to a photo, much more so than the camera body. The quality of the glass inside the lens is the key.. After 30 years of making an excellent living out of photography, it's always been the same. In saying that, don't get me wrong.. I have a D800 and my back up these days is a D700... I recently picked up a second hand D70 just to demonstrate this point to the few talented up and coming photographers I teach... With lenses, buy once, buy the best and they'll not only out last you but they'll always out perform cheaper non professional lenses. It's the difference between a Vogue Cover and a nice pic. In the days prior to digital my Nikon F4s with the equivalent 80-200mm 2.8 lens did not let me down once over a 17 year period.. It was 1989, I paid a little over $10,300.oo for the body and 3 lenses all up and got my investment back within 3 weeks.. Bite the bullet and go for quality!

vicspics Loc: Pennsylvania

Elandel, I got the 28-300 for a recent trip out west in an effort to not carry several lenses and have most of my bases covered. I used it on the D800e. I got it based on MT's recommendations. He was right on! I'm as enthusiastic now as he is .... From personal experience. Later today I'm going to post some pics from it if you'd like to see them. I can't imagine anyone saying it's not sharp. It is most definitely sharp! Also, I went from shooting landscapes and canyons and sunsets to then come home to shoot a wedding and still very happy with it (switching with the 24-70). The 70-200 is way too heavy for me right now. I had reconstructive surgery on my arm and weight needs to be considered. What Grant Good says about the 70-200 is a fact...phenomenal lens!

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

Thank you very much. I woulld really appreiate your pics if you can post them. Looking forward for your advice.

vicspics Loc: Pennsylvania

Sure. It'll be in a few hours from now. Have to leave or I'd quickly do it. I'll send you a couple from the canyon and also the wedding. :)